Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Black Hole information loss problem is unsolvable

backreaction.blogspot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 143 posts

Re: The Black Hole information loss problem is unsolvable

#11

Post by tsimionescu »

coliveira wrote: post #6
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #5

For me, this was the money quote: > The black hole information loss problem is not a math problem. It’s not like trying to prove the Riemann hypothesis. You cannot solve the black hole information loss problem with math alone. You need data, there is no data, and there won’t be any data. Which is why the black hole information loss problem is for all practical purposes unsolvable. We lack experimental data. We lack a…

This is not a convincing argument. We may not have data, but as in other problems in physics we may have indirect ways to get evidence. These indirect ways may not be apparent nowadays, but may become in the future.

Sure, but until such a time, the problem will remain unsolvable.

Re: The Black Hole information loss problem is unsolvable

#12

Post by sampo »

coliveira wrote: post #6
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #5

For me, this was the money quote: > The black hole information loss problem is not a math problem. It’s not like trying to prove the Riemann hypothesis. You cannot solve the black hole information loss problem with math alone. You need data, there is no data, and there won’t be any data. Which is why the black hole information loss problem is for all practical purposes unsolvable. We lack experimental data. We lack a…

This is not a convincing argument. We may not have data, but as in other problems in physics we may have indirect ways to get evidence. These indirect ways may not be apparent nowadays, but may become in the future.

As far as I understand, Nordström's second theory of gravitation is a mathematically self-consistent theory for gravitation, and the only way to decide between it and Einstein's theory was by comparing to observations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordstr%C3%B6m%27s_theory_of_g...

Re: The Black Hole information loss problem is unsolvable

#13

Post by Kranar »

coliveira wrote: post #6
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #5

For me, this was the money quote: > The black hole information loss problem is not a math problem. It’s not like trying to prove the Riemann hypothesis. You cannot solve the black hole information loss problem with math alone. You need data, there is no data, and there won’t be any data. Which is why the black hole information loss problem is for all practical purposes unsolvable. We lack experimental data. We lack a…

This is not a convincing argument. We may not have data, but as in other problems in physics we may have indirect ways to get evidence. These indirect ways may not be apparent nowadays, but may become in the future.

Indirect data is still data. What she's saying is that math equations aren't data and hence math equations alone can't solve this problem.

Re: The Black Hole information loss problem is unsolvable

#14

Post by tsimionescu »

ramshorns wrote: post #7
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #5

For me, this was the money quote: > The black hole information loss problem is not a math problem. It’s not like trying to prove the Riemann hypothesis. You cannot solve the black hole information loss problem with math alone. You need data, there is no data, and there won’t be any data. Which is why the black hole information loss problem is for all practical purposes unsolvable. We lack experimental data. We lack a…

It leaves me wondering, is that data fundamentally impossible to collect, or do we just not know how yet? Sure, maybe the problem is unsolvable by math alone but that doesn't make it mathematically unsolvable. Maybe we could build or capture a black hole in the lab, put detectors all around it, and watch it evaporate, or something.

It might not really be fundamentally impossible, but it could be completely unachievable practically - harder than unscrambling an omelette back into an intact, uncooked egg.

Re: The Black Hole information loss problem is unsolvable

#15

Post by whimsicalism »

> And without data, the question is not which solution to the problem is correct, but which one you like best.

I think this is correct to some extent, ultimately unavoidable, and some assumptions can be "inferred" as more reasonable than others, even in the absence of falsification.

By Sabine's stance, the problem of induction [0] hasn't been "solved" because we actually have no reason to assume that past events are at all related to future events. So when we say that induction is possible, we say so because we "like best" that theory of causality, rather than my alternate theory that when you finish reading this sentence, all physics will cease to function and the universe will end.

It didn't happen, but we had no reason to know so ahead of time deductively. However, it is still reasonable (in my view) to believe in induction.

So sure, it's perhaps 'unsolvable', but if a plausible explanation comes around that is consistent with modern physics that seems good to me.

[0]: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/induction-problem/

Re: The Black Hole information loss problem is unsolvable

#16

Post by tsimionescu »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #4
mellosouls wrote: post #2

The recent discussions here on the article Dr Hossenfelder is sceptical about: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24940086 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25092231

Note, however, her comment: > This is why the headline that the black hole information loss problem is “coming to an end” is ridiculous. Though, let me mention that I know the author of the piece, George Musser, and he’s a decent guy and, the way this often goes, he didn’t choose the title. She's against where the popular media wants to go with the article, and against the headline, but not so much against the articl…

I think she also believes that, since the problem is not even close to being testable at this time at least, it is not really worth studying to the current extent - any theories about it would only remain mathematical constructs, not physical theories.

Re: The Black Hole information loss problem is unsolvable

#17

Post by tsimionescu »

whimsicalism wrote: post #15

> And without data, the question is not which solution to the problem is correct, but which one you like best. I think this is correct to some extent, ultimately unavoidable, and some assumptions can be "inferred" as more reasonable than others, even in the absence of falsification. By Sabine's stance, the problem of induction [0] hasn't been "solved" because we actually have no reason to assume that past events are…

As far as I understand, there are plenty of plausible explanations that are consistent with modern physics. The problem is finding out which one of them (if any) is right, since they are not all mutually compatible.

Re: The Black Hole information loss problem is unsolvable

#19

Post by whimsicalism »

tsimionescu wrote: post #17
whimsicalism wrote: post #15

> And without data, the question is not which solution to the problem is correct, but which one you like best. I think this is correct to some extent, ultimately unavoidable, and some assumptions can be "inferred" as more reasonable than others, even in the absence of falsification. By Sabine's stance, the problem of induction [0] hasn't been "solved" because we actually have no reason to assume that past events are…

As far as I understand, there are plenty of plausible explanations that are consistent with modern physics. The problem is finding out which one of them (if any) is right, since they are not all mutually compatible.

Sure, but I think there's a difference between "if we conjecture this additional effect that has never been observed but is not inconsistent with observation, then we see this thing" vs. "actually this is sort of resolved by a straightforward application of solutions to models we already had of effects we have already observed"

Re: The Black Hole information loss problem is unsolvable

#20

Post by shaded-enmity »

whimsicalism wrote: post #15

> And without data, the question is not which solution to the problem is correct, but which one you like best. I think this is correct to some extent, ultimately unavoidable, and some assumptions can be "inferred" as more reasonable than others, even in the absence of falsification. By Sabine's stance, the problem of induction [0] hasn't been "solved" because we actually have no reason to assume that past events are…

I'm confused, isn't the whole schtick around past events being related to future events the basis of causality?
Post reply on HN